21–30 of 73 posts
Very cool. I wish there was a time dimension on this. Also, would love to see Berkeley/Oakland. SOMA was actually one of the best values merely 5 yrs ago. My friends got a huge 1BR loft with parking spot for 2500. Granted they had no rent control and got effectively evicted when the rent increased to 3300. So maybe it wasn't the best value afterall.
I would love one of these for LA!
Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a minimum would help. Take Mission for example - would you really spend $2250 per month rent on an 82,000 salary? That's nearly 2 weeks' take-home pay after taxes. Good financial practice says that your rent/mortgage should only be 1 week's take-home pay. A respons…
Here In NYC, the rule of thumb is 40x your monthly rent to get salary to qualify (so $2250 would mean $90k salary.) I guess it's different in SF?
Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a minimum would help. Take Mission for example - would you really spend $2250 per month rent on an 82,000 salary? That's nearly 2 weeks' take-home pay after taxes. Good financial practice says that your rent/mortgage should only be 1 week's take-home pay. A respons…
In the bay area, I'd say 1.5 ($1846) weeks to 2 ($2461) weeks of pay is a more realistic number.
The only people I know that have rent/mortgage that is 1 week's take-home pay either make significantly more than $100K per year or have split the rent between multiple occupants/families.
Being a single person in the Bay Area, or a couple with one income earner is not an easy task when you consider those figures.
When the hell did bayview become so expensive comparatively?
Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a minimum would help. Take Mission for example - would you really spend $2250 per month rent on an 82,000 salary? That's nearly 2 weeks' take-home pay after taxes. Good financial practice says that your rent/mortgage should only be 1 week's take-home pay. A respons…
"most likely you can afford to live here" Seems like a good enough qualifier. Especially since these are median prices, so cheaper rents are to be found . not actually. SF is nuts.
True: but it can stop being nuts, or at least be less nuts, whenever voters want it to be: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . SF's housing price problem is entirely self-inflicted, even if many people seem to treat it as some law of nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean by "efficient". personally I live in a one bedroom, and there's one of me, and the heat map for my area looks perfectly accurate. I'm also happy not to be forced to live with someone and still work any where I like. Freedom 'n all.
So wait, couples are 'forced' to live together? You would think a couple would like each other to some extent, and in a lot of cases enough to gladly live together.
Surely a one bedroom place is the least efficient way to live? Also, bear in mind most people live in couples, so if there's two of you, a combined income of $100,000 is very reasonable, and you should be able to live anywhere here.
Some other related statistics I thought were interesting: According to the Census, the median household income in SF was $72,947. According to census data from 2007-2011, approximately 1/3 of SF residents make over 100k. There's a notable doubling of households making >200k between 2000 and 2011, from ~20k to ~42k. Based on the two datasets, it seems like 2/3rds of the population of SF either cannot or can only barel…
High rents in San Francisco are caused purely by scarcity. That is, everyone wants to live there, but the city refuses to allow more units to be built or make it easier to rent. This damage is self-inflicted; California liberals hate density and gentrification although such things are green, decrease broad-market housing costs thereby serving the "displaced" poor, increase urban vibrancy, and reduce traffic congestion compared to the status quo.
I saw a study that suggested the economic cost for permission to build a unit in SF (calculated by subtracting a unit's cost from the value of the land it sits on plus the cost of building it) is $600k. By contrast, it's $100k in Chicago and five figures in any major city in Texas.